You are on page 1of 40

Historical Materialism 25.

3 (2017) 36–75

brill.com/hima

Limits of the Universal: The Promises and Pitfalls of


Postcolonial Theory and Its Critique

Alexander Anievas
Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut
alexander.anievas@uconn.edu

Kerem Nişancıoğlu
Department of Politics and International Studies, SOAS, University of London
kn18@soas.ac.uk

Abstract

This article seeks to reassess the potential merits and weaknesses of the Subaltern
Studies project through the prism of Vivek Chibber’s much-publicised and contro-
versial book Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. By critically examining
Chibber’s work, the article aims to better pinpoint exactly what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’
with the Subaltern Studies project, while drawing out some productive points of en-
gagement between Marxism and postcolonial theory more generally. In particular, we
argue that an understanding of the origins of capitalist modernity remains a relatively
unexplored omission within postcolonial thought that problematises their broader
project of ‘provincialising Europe’. Against this backdrop, the article explores the af-
finities between Leon Trotsky’s notion of uneven and combined development and
postcolonialism, demonstrating how the former can provide a theoretical solution to
the problem of Eurocentrism that the Subaltern Studies project correctly identifies but
inadequately conceptualises.

Keywords

postcolonialism – Marxism – Subaltern Studies – Eurocentrism – origins of capitalism –


uneven and combined development

*  The authors would like to thank Banu Bargu, Luke Cooper, John Game, Rob Knox, Kamran
Matin, Nivi Manchanda and three anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on
various drafts of this article. The usual disclaimers apply.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/1569206X-12341539


Limits of the Universal 37

Introduction

Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital1 has generated
an unusual amount of attention for an academic work – particularly so for
a text dealing with a number of complex and sometimes arcane theoretical
issues.2 Chibber’s critique of Subaltern Studies – and postcolonialism more
generally by his reasoning – has provoked a polarised and lively response from
scholars working within a variety of disciplines (Political Economy, Cultural
Studies, Sociology, International Relations, etc.) and different theoretical and
political traditions. To some extent, this is not surprising. Postcolonial Theory
is an intentionally provocative and polemical text which was bound to incite
passionate responses, particularly from the subjects of Chibber’s critique and
their most ardent detractors. And so it has. Those working within the Subaltern
and postcolonial traditions – the two not being entirely identical3 – have re-
sponded in kind, from questioning the validity of Chibber’s interpretations
of their and other colleagues’ work,4 to challenging the extent to which his
critique of Subaltern Studies applies to postcolonial theory more generally,5
to cross-examining Chibber’s own self-proclaimed Marxist credentials.6 In
contrast, a number of Marxist commentaries on the book have hailed it as a
blistering and systematic demolition of postcolonial theory’s pseudo-radical,
anti-universalist strand of postmodernist-influenced obscurantism.7 The in-
ternal Enemy Other has been identified and slain.
Of course, Chibber’s book is neither the first Marxist critique of postcolo-
nialism nor the first critique of postcolonialism’s historical and sociological
analyses.8 However, it has been the most widely publicised and debated and,

1  Chibber 2013.
2  See, inter alia, Vanaik 2013; Chatterjee 2013; Levien 2013; Watson 2013; Murphet 2014; Brennan
2014; Jani 2014; Ahmed 2014; Spivak 2014; Journal of World-Systems Research 2014; Nilsen 2015;
Lazarus 2016.
3  For an illuminating discussion of the distinct intellectual lineages of postcolonialism and
Subaltern Studies, see Lazarus 2016, pp. 93–5; Parry 2017.
4  Cf. Chatterjee 2013; Seth 2014; Murphet 2014; Roy 2015.
5  See especially Spivak 2014.
6  Cf. Murphet 2014.
7  Ahmed 2014; Schwartz 2014.
8  Unfortunately, Chibber assigns many extant Marxist criticisms of postcolonial theory to the
‘literary and cultural fronts’ (Chibber 2013, pp. 4–5, n. 7) without acknowledging the much
broader scope of critique represented by these works and others. As we shall see, a more
direct engagement with this broader literature of Marxist works on postcolonialism would
have likely strengthened Chibber’s analysis and perhaps corrected some of the more prob-
lematic aspects of his critique (cf. Lazarus 2016). As Neil Lazarus notes in regard to Chibber’s

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


38 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

for this reason alone, merits scrutiny. Postcolonial Theory has also been suc-
cessful in sparking a renewed debate on the relationship between Marxism
and postcolonial theory, though perhaps not the one Chibber had hoped for.9
As Timothy Brennan points out, many reviewers of Postcolonial Theory have
seen it as a ‘showdown between Marxism and postcolonial theory’, though
Brennan suggests that the more interesting divide – unrecognised by either
Chibber or most of his interlocutors – is one within Marxism itself: ‘the internal
bifurcation of humanist and social-scientific interpretations of Marxism’.10
This is indeed an interesting question that sheds a rather different light
on Chibber’s assessment of postcolonial theory’s ‘rejection’ of Marxism,11
his dismissal of Robert Young’s tracing of postcolonialism back to the anti-
colonial Marxist tradition as ‘spectacularly mistaken’,12 and his characterisa-
tion of the original Subaltern Studies project as an ‘amalgam of liberal and
Marxist elements’; a Marxism, yes, but ‘one of a particular kind’ that ‘would
be scarcely recognized by many contemporary Marxists’.13 Perhaps. But then
much the same could be said of Chibber’s own favoured brand of Marxism:
a peculiar combination of liberal and Marxist elements drawing upon the
Rational Choice Marxism of Jon Elster and Erik Olin Wright and the Political
Marxism of Robert Brenner and Ellen Wood, dosed with a mix of Rawlsian
social-contract theory (to which Chibber ‘proudly’ adheres)14 and the work
of modernisation theorist Amartya Sen. This is a Marxism, we agree, but also

consignment of such works (including his own) to solely cultural and literary issues, this
enables ‘Chibber to claim that his study is the first to set out “to examine the framework
that postcolonial studies has generated for historical analysis and, in particular, the anal-
ysis of what once was called Third Worldism” ’ (Lazarus 2016, p. 91). The problem for
Chibber, as Lazarus points out, is that many of these works do critique postcolonialism’s
historical analyses. And given Chibber’s non-engagement with this wider body of litera-
ture, he ‘ends up having to reinvent the wheel on quite a few occasions’ (Lazarus 2016,
p. 92). For some particularly notable Marxist critiques in this regard, see the collection of
essays in Bartolovich and Lazarus (eds.) 2002, especially chapters by Lazarus, Nimtz, and
San Juan; Ahmad 1992; Larsen 2001; Kaiwar 2004 and 2014; Parry 2004; Lazarus and
Varma 2008; Matin 2013.
9  Cf. Brennan 2014; Murphet 2014; Nilsen 2015; Lazarus 2016; Parry 2017. For useful overviews
of postcolonialism’s relationship to the Marxist tradition, see Chakrabarty 2005; Young
2001; and Lazarus and Varma 2008.
10  Brennan 2014, p. 82.
11  Chibber 2013, p. 2.
12  Chibber 2013, p. 290.
13  Chibber 2013, p. 10; emphasis in original.
14  See Chibber’s comments during a debate on ‘Marxism and the Legacy of Subaltern
Studies’ held at the Historical Materialism New York 2013 Conference, which can be found
at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbM8HJrxSJ4>.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 39

a Marxism of ‘a particular kind’, which at least some contemporary Marxists


would not recognise.15 The Marxist historian Utathya Chattopadhyaya, for ex-
ample, has criticised Chibber for ‘situating Marx and Rawls in the same ge-
nealogy where liberalism and Marxism appear wholly compatible under an
Enlightenment umbrella’, which ‘is indicative of how liberal rights-based left-
ism has pervaded the space of rigorous Marxist critique’,16 while others have
chastised the work as being too entrenched in rational choice methodological
assumptions and thus ‘undialectical’.17 There is some truth to these criticisms.18
However, as other reviewers have discussed these subjects at length elsewhere,
we will instead focus on the substantive content of Chibber’s main criticisms
of Subaltern Studies, which in part connects with some of the interpretive is-
sues raised by Partha Chatterjee and others19 but which have remained inad-
equately assessed.
One might nonetheless question the rationale for offering yet another cri-
tique of a work that has already received so much scrutiny. To be clear, our aim
is not to provide a systematic critique of Postcolonial Theory, but rather to use
Chibber’s Marxist-inspired critique of the Subaltern project as a foil to reassess
the strengths and weakness of postcolonial theory, and Marxist engagements
with postcolonialism more generally. We find this particularly useful for two
reasons. First, given the attention Chibber’s work has garnered it will likely be
a launching-pad for many subsequent discussions and debates on the poten-
tials and pitfalls of postcolonialism, particularly within Marxist circles. For this
reason, it is important for our discussion to assess the merits of Chibber’s cri-
tique and, in particular, his interpretation of the Subaltern Studies works he

15  Interestingly, the same historical socio-political conjuncture – the waning of the labour
movement in the wake of the frontal assault by neoliberalism in the late 1970s and 1980s
and the concomitant retreat of radicals to the academy – that produced the ostensibly
disfigured form of Marxism practised by the Subalternists also produced the Analytical
and Political-Marxist traditions that Chibber so heavily draws upon.
16  Chattopadhyaya 2014.
17  Levien 2013; Murphet 2013.
18  Whether or not Chibber’s analysis is properly ‘Marxist enough’ is beside the point and
not a particularly useful criterion for adjudicating the strengths and weaknesses of his ar-
guments. Criticisms of Chibber’s particular methodology are, however, germane to such
discussions and, in this respect, the rational choice assumptions of his analysis merit scru-
tiny (see Levien 2013; Murphet 2013). Most problematic in this regard is Chibber’s adher-
ence to Rawlsian social-contract theory and a strong liberal-Enlightenment conception of
universalism, both of which are Eurocentric. Situating Marx within this Enlightenment
tradition is also somewhat problematic as he neither shared their form of method nor
universalism, which is at the crux of many of the issues raised by Chibber’s critics.
19  Chatterjee 2013; Levien 2013; Seth 2014.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


40 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

engages (particularly, for our purposes here, those of Dipesh Chakrabarty and
Ranjit Guha).
Our focus on Chibber’s work in this regard is, then, not due to the fact it
represents the only systematic or even best example of an avowedly Marxist
critique of postcolonial theory, but instead because it will likely prove a highly
influential – and contested – one which, as we shall demonstrate, reveals as
much as it obscures in critiquing the Subaltern project. Second, by critically
examining Chibber’s work, we aim to better pinpoint exactly what is ‘right’
and ‘wrong’ with postcolonial studies. Specifically, an understanding of the ori-
gins of capitalist modernity remains a relatively unexplored omission within
postcolonial thought that, we argue, problematises the broader postcolonial
project of ‘provincialising Europe’. We consider this especially apposite since
Chibber’s own analysis focuses on a number of substantive historical sociolog-
ical claims of the Subalternists and, in particular, Guha’s account of the early
bourgeois revolutions in Europe. Against this backdrop, we then explore the af-
finities between Leon Trotsky’s notion of uneven and combined development
and Postcolonialism,20 demonstrating how the former can provide a theoreti-
cal solution to the problem of Eurocentrism and understanding sociohistorical
difference that the Subalternists identify but inadequately conceptualise.
The themes raised by Chibber’s critique of the Subaltern project and our
analysis of it are crucial to broader debates on the standing (and potential lim-
its) of the universal in social theory, the logic and history of capitalist develop-
ment and how it encounters societal multiplicity and difference, and therefore
also our conceptions of the making of the modern world itself. Here it is worth
highlighting one central point of critique offered by Chibber that we agree
with and believe is highly significant. Chibber’s defence of the utility – indeed,
necessity – of Marxist theories and concepts is, of course, one we strongly ad-
here to: hence our own use of Trotsky’s idea of uneven and combined develop-
ment. Where we nonetheless depart from Chibber is over the extent to which
these concepts and theories can be applied to particular spaces and histories
in an unmediated fashion; that is to say, we differ on the extent to which they
need to be ‘translated’ and reconfigured to fit the socio-historical specificities

20  It is worth noting that postcolonialism is a highly diverse tradition of thought, which is
not reducible to the work of any particular author or approach. In this article, we focus
primarily on Subaltern Studies as one (hugely important, itself diverse) approach operat-
ing within this much wider tradition. We do so in part in order to tackle the criticisms
offered by Chibber, who focuses exclusively on Subaltern Studies.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 41

of different locales.21 The uneven and interactive character of development


across time and space demands the kind of ‘slightly stretched’ Marxism that
Franz Fanon called for22 in understanding the colonial experience and which
we have sought to further develop in explaining the rise of capitalism itself.23
The point is that Marxists should not shy away from the postcolonial critique
of Eurocentrism, but rather directly engage with it as the Marxist tradition of-
fers invaluable resources for breaking out of the Eurocentric cage.
Before engaging with these issues, we must first address three fundamental
questions: what are Chibber’s central criticisms of postcolonial theory? What
constitutes postcolonialism as such? And what are its main theoretical aims
and objects of analysis?

The Problematic of Sociohistorical Difference

‘Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital’: Argument


Explained
Chibber’s critique of postcolonial theory rests on three central claims. First,
that Ranjit Guha’s argument that capitalism failed to ‘universalize once it left
European shores’24 and the Subalternists’ denial of capital’s real universalis-
ing tendency25 are mistaken. Chibber claims that Guha (and the Subaltern
project more generally) views capital’s universalising tendency as encompass-
ing ‘two distinct elements’: (1) the ‘ “self-expansion of capital” ’, and; (2) the
cultural and political transformations wrought in its wake.26 The problem
for the Subalternists is that they conflate these two distinct elements, lead-
ing them to argue that if the latter socio-cultural transformations are absent
within a particular society then capital’s universalising tendency must be
judged a failure. However, the Subalternists’ rejection of capital’s real univer-
salising tendency is, Chibber argues, based upon a misunderstanding of what
capitalism is in fact universalising: a particular reproductive strategy based

21  For a discussion of this point vis-à-vis the question of defining capitalism, see Anievas
and Nişancıoğlu 2016.
22  Fanon 1963, p. 40.
23  Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015.
24  Chibber 2014a, p. 312.
25  Chibber 2013, p. 100.
26  Chibber 2013, p. 110.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


42 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

on market-dependence.27 Once we correct this misunderstanding, then it be-


comes clear that capitalism has indeed universalised.
Flowing from this line of critique emerges Chibber’s second key claim: that
the developmental divide between ‘West’ and ‘East’ posited by Subalternists –
in terms of the character of their respective national bourgeoisie, power relations,
and the ‘political psychology’ motivating agents – is false. Chibber explicates
these arguments in the historical and sociological chapters of the book on the
early bourgeois revolutions (Chapters 2–4), power (Chapters 5–6), and the
driving forces of subaltern resistance (Chapters 7–8). Third, given the ‘essential
convergence of capitalist strategies West and East’, Chibber claims that these
two forms of society must be considered ‘variants of the same species’ and
therefore may be understood and explained by theories emanating from the
European experience.28 As such, Chibber argues for the applicability – indeed
necessity – of Western-based (Enlightenment) universal categories and theo-
ries to capture the basic structural developmental trajectories of societies both
in the ‘West’ and ‘East’.
We will examine each of these claims below. Before doing so, we must first
explicate what postcolonialism is and is not, and what are its main arguments
and objects of analysis.

Postcolonial Studies Engaging Capital


Dealing with issues of historical difference and theoretical homogeneity in
correcting the Eurocentric bias of social theory is at the heart of what might
broadly be termed postcolonialism. Two central elements of postcolonialism
are worth highlighting in this regard. Firstly, postcolonial scholars have sought
to ‘provincialise’ Europe by decentring the Eurocentric claim that Western
social forms and accompanying discourses are homogenously universal.29
Postcolonial approaches emphasise that European modernity and identity
have always been constituted against – and through the subordination of – a
non-Western ‘Other’.30
In so doing, these authors stress the centrality of colonial practices as
deeply embedded within the structure of European power and identity.31
Consequently, postcolonialism places the particularity of alternative vi-
sions of society originating in non-Western cases at the heart of its research

27  Chibber 2013, p. 100.


28  Chibber 2013, p. 22.
29  Chakrabarty 2008.
30  Said 1978.
31  Cf. Inayatullah and Blaney 2004; Bhambra 2007.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 43

programme.32 By ‘giving a voice to the Other’, postcolonialism shows how sub-


altern experiences have disrupted Eurocentric visions of history, thereby reas-
serting the significance of non-Western agency in world history.33
The second step draws on the first in order to assert the heterogeneity of
all social development and its irreducibility to exclusively European forms.
According to postcolonialism, history is neither universal nor homogenous,
but marked by difference, hybridity and ambivalence – in short, multiplicity.
As such, postcolonialism also seeks to dislodge the linearity of historical time,
and reject any possibility of stadial conceptions of development.34 For the
Subaltern project in particular, as Partha Chatterjee suggests,35 this has meant
studying how the dynamics and processes of primitive accumulation have op-
erated under different historical conditions. We believe these two pointers – a
non-Eurocentric and multilinear history – to be the primary strengths of the
postcolonial approach and where its promise for the study and critique of
capitalism lies. We examine each in turn, with a particular focus on Dipesh
Chakrabarty’s Provincializing Europe and Ranajit Guha’s Dominance without
Hegemony, which form two of the main targets of Chibber’s critique.36 In this
way, we hope to avoid some of the pitfalls of attempting a general overview of
a highly heterogeneous research programme. Nonetheless, we also consider
Chakrabarty’s and Guha’s work to be of particular importance to the ‘postco-
lonial phase of Subaltern Studies’,37 and thus deserving of special attention.

The Eurocentrism of Historicism

Annihilating Difference through Time and Space


Postcolonialism is, first and foremost, a specific reaction against attempts
in Western thought – most notably, liberalism, modernisation theory and
Marxism – to subsume all sociohistorical realities under the universal ru-
bric of capitalist modernity. These universalist accounts suffer because they
tend to either misread or, worse, overlook difference. Chakrabarty calls this
‘historicism’ – a way of writing history that ‘both recognizes and neutralizes

32  Acharya 2011.


33  Bhabha 2012.
34  Cf. Bhambra 2007, especially pp. 34–55.
35  Chatterjee 2013 (‘Marxism and the Legacy of Subaltern Studies’).
36  The other key works that Chibber examines are Partha Chatterjee’s The Nation and Its
Fragments (1993) and Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World (1986).
37  Kaiwar 2014, p. 28.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


44 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

difference’, wherein ‘differences among histories’ are ‘overcome by capital in


the long run’.38 Historicism tends to portray capitalism ‘as a force that encoun-
ters historical difference’ externally, struggles with this difference, and eventu-
ally negates or, more precisely, subsumes it ‘into historically diverse vehicles
for the spread of its own logic’.39
Such an approach carries with it a specific kind of highly politicised pre-
scription. By positing Europe ‘as the site of the first occurrence of capital-
ism, modernity, or Enlightenment’, non-Europeans were assigned a place
‘elsewhere’.40 Historical developments subsequently came to be judged almost
exclusively against a European norm, and those histories which did not fit or
comply with that norm were dismissed as ‘incomplete’. Differences come to
be articulated through (and thus abolished by) essentialised binaries such as
‘pre-capitalism’ and ‘capitalism’, ‘modern’ and ‘pre-modern’, ‘archaic’ and ‘con-
temporary’, ‘world-empires’ and ‘world-system’, and the like.
The very notion of incompleteness carries within it the sort of hierarchies
that were present in colonialism (such as notions of ‘barbarism’, ‘uncivility’,
‘backwardness’, ‘inadequacy’). Historicism consequently posits ‘a measure of
the cultural distance ... that was assumed to exist between the West and the
non-West’,41 and became a way of saying to non-Europeans, ‘wait! not yet!’ in
their calls for autonomy and recognition.42 This becomes most evident when
examining the ‘peasant’ or ‘subaltern’. For example, Eric Hobsbawm’s charac-
terisation of the (Indian) peasant in history as ‘pre-political’ and ‘archaic’ is
rooted in an understanding of non-European development as ‘incomplete’.43
These agents are seen as a survival or remnant of pre-capitalist relations. More
recent iterations of this same strategy can be found, according to Chakrabarty,
in notions of ‘uneven development’, which ascribes ‘at least an underlying
structural unity (if not expressive totality) to historical process and time that

38  Chakrabarty 2008, pp. 47–8.


39  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 48.
40  Chakrabarty 2008, pp. 7–8.
41  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 7. Historicism is therefore heavily inscribed within the narrative of
historical ‘transition’. Within the transition narrative, history tends to be hung between
‘the two poles of homologous sets of oppositions: despotic/constitutional, medieval/
modern, feudal/capitalist’. In colonial histories, ‘this transition narrative was an un-
abashed celebration of the imperialists’ capacity for violence and conquest’ (Chakrabarty
2008, p. 32).
42  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 8; see also Chatterjee 2010, pp. 296–7.
43  Chakrabarty 2008, pp. 11–12.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 45

makes it possible to identify certain elements in the present as “anachronistic”


or “outmoded” ’.44

Traces of the Non-Universal


Historicism becomes especially problematic when we consider the centrality
of the peasant in the making of modernity. Peasant agency, although distinctly
non-bourgeois and non-secular and historically connected to practices that ex-
isted prior to colonialism, was still unequivocally both political and modern.45
Indeed, as David Washbrook argues, the very prevalence of a ‘backward’ or ‘tra-
ditional’ stratum of society (in contrast to the ‘modern’) was itself a result of
the construction of colonialism in South Asia.46
The act of subsuming the peasant under the rubric of the ‘pre-modern’, ‘pre-
capitalist’ or ‘pre-capital’ therefore reflects nothing other than the violent at-
tempt to fit the subaltern ‘into the rationalist grid of elite consciousness’, in a
way that makes them intelligible to colonialists and bourgeois nationalists.47
The upshot is an otherwise politically significant peasantry becoming silenced,
misrepresented or marginalised by history-writing. For this reason, Chatterjee
seeks to recast the historical question of non-European modernity in different
terms:

Are we to explain ‘retarded’ capitalism simply in terms of a time lag, or


should we treat it as an expression of the historical limits of Capital’s uni-
versalising mission? To choose the latter would require us to abandon a
methodological procedure designed to explain the emergence of capi-
talism as a universal system of generalized commodity production and
to substitute in its place one that enables us to identify and explain the
limits to the historical actualisation of Capital as a universal economic
category.48

44  Chakrabarty 2008, pp. 12, 47. Gurminder Bhambra’s (2011) criticism of uneven and com-
bined development similarly questions the conceptual and theoretical emphasis on an
unproblematised conception of development. For an examination of such criticisms, see
Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015, pp. 43–63.
45  As such, the peasant is lauded within postcolonialism as the agent that subverts histori-
cism by its very agency, by its very participation in the ‘path’ of history it has been denied
entry to – it is the non- rather than pre-bourgeois, the non- not pre-modern (Chakrabarty
2008, pp. 10–11).
46  Washbrook 1990.
47  Chatterjee 2010, p. 292.
48  Chatterjee 1983, pp. 64–5.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


46 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

One of the primary concerns of postcolonialism is therefore to ‘provincialise


Europe’ by showing ‘how universalistic thought was always and already modi-
fied by particular histories’.49 To put it differently, it seeks to demonstrate that
concepts and categories that purport to be universal always contain within
them traces of the not-universal.
This is evident in two respects. First, postcolonialists seek to show how
seemingly ‘universal’ concepts of political modernity ‘encounter pre-existing
concepts, categories, institutions and practices through which they get trans-
lated and configured differently’.50 Second, postcolonialists aim to demon-
strate how ostensibly universal categories are in fact themselves particular and
provincial, in that they were the product of a specific European experience.51
Chatterjee highlights that the supposed universalism of European social forms
in fact masks a particular historical experience, which only became universal
due to the specific history of capitalism:

If there is one great moment that turns the provincial thought of Europe
to universal philosophy, the parochial history of Europe to universal his-
tory, it is the moment of capital – capital that is global in its territorial
reach and universal in its conceptual domain. It is the narrative of capital
that can turn the violence of mercantile trade, war, genocide, conquest
and colonialism into a story of universal progress, development, modern-
ization, and freedom.52

The universality of capital thereby allows for the writing of a universal his-
tory in a way previously unimaginable. For the Subalternists, this universality
does not, however, imply an emptying-out or homogenisation of the concrete
particularities of any given society, but can in fact work to reconstitute and
produce such societal differences.

The Internal Limits to Capital’s Universalising Tendency


It should be clear from the outset, then, that the likes of Chatterjee, Chakrabarty
and Guha do not deny capital’s universalising tendency.53 Indeed, nowhere do

49  Chakrabarty 2008, p. xiv.


50  Chakrabarty 2008, p. xii. Interestingly, Chakrabarty implies that this is itself a universal
law of history, when he suggests that ‘if this argument is true of India, then it is true of any
other place as well, including Europe’. See also Chatterjee 2010, p. 294.
51  Chakrabarty 2008, p. xii.
52  Chatterjee 1993, p. 235.
53  Chibber claims, for example, that his historical-sociological analysis proves that ‘the
universalization of capital is real, pace the claims of the Subalternist collectivity’, while

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 47

each of the Subaltern Studies scholars castigated by Chibber deny that capital
demonstrates a real tendency toward universalisation. Rather, their claim is an
altogether different one: that capital’s universalising tendency is necessarily
limited, always and everywhere partial – all points made by Chibber himself.
For example, Chakrabarty highlights the ‘“resistance to capital” ’ that Marx
speaks of as ‘something internal to capital itself’. Hence, ‘the self-reproduction
of capital’, as Chakrabarty notes, going on to invoke another quote from Marx,

‘moves in contradictions which are constantly overcome but just as con-


stantly posited’. Just because, he [Marx] adds, capital gets ideally beyond
every limit posed to it by ‘national barriers and prejudices’, ‘it does not by
any means follow that it has really overcome it’.54

This passage taken from Marx’s Grundrisse is also quoted in full by Guha, after
which he writes: ‘Nothing could be more explicit and indeed more devastating
than this critique of the universalist pretensions of capital’.55 This is important
given that Guha is here explicitly claiming that while capital’s universalising
drive is a real historical tendency it is also one met by certain counter-tenden-
cies or limitations inhering in capital’s own logic of process.
Moreover, following Marx again, Guha views this contradictory unity of
universalising and counter-universalising tendencies as operating within both
‘the East’ and ‘West’ (specifically Europe). For Marx, Guha explains:

the discrepancy between the universalizing tendency of capital as an


ideal and the frustration of that tendency in reality was, for him, a mea-
sure of the contradictions of Western bourgeois societies of his time and the
differences which gave each of them its specificity.56

In contrast to Chibber’s critique, capital’s ‘universalising mission’ was limited


in both the Global South and North for Marx – the latter being exemplified
by the ‘incomplete’ character of the ‘bourgeois revolutions’ of Marx’s own
time as demonstrated in Germany and elsewhere. Thus, the ‘structural fault

elsewhere noting that they are ‘wrong in identifying what is actually universalized’ by
capital (Chibber 2013, pp. 285, 100). Chibber ultimately overstates his case by arguing that
postcolonialists seek to ‘defend the specificity of the East’ by ‘denying the applicability of
Western theory’s universalizing categories’ and ‘denying that capital successfully univer-
salizes’ (Chibber 2013, p. 212). As we shall see, none of these charges are accurate.
54  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 85.
55  Guha 1997, p. 16.
56  Guha 1997, p. 16; emphasis ours.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


48 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

in the historic project of the bourgeoisie’ Guha highlights57 was not simply
between, as Chibber asserts, ‘the Indian bourgeoisie and its predecessors’ in
Europe.58 It was instead a broader spatio-temporal fault-line traversing the
entire world: one between the ‘early’ bourgeois revolutions in England and
France, on the one hand, and the later bourgeois revolutions running east of
the Elbe in Europe as well as those beyond Europe as with India, on the other.
This understanding of the differentiated spatio-temporal ordering of the bour-
geois revolutions, whereby the further they travelled in space and time from
capitalism’s inception the more differences accumulated,59 is, we would argue,
more consistent with the historical record than Chibber’s own account of the
English and French revolutions that denies their anti-feudal character whilst
misconstruing the role the bourgeoisie played in them.60

The Violence of Abstraction

The Liminality of the Universal


The postcolonial project of provincialising Europe is therefore not about re-
jecting the universality of capitalist modernity out of hand; or, in Chakrabarty’s
terms, it is not a project of cultural relativism.61 These authors accept that capi-
talism has a universal reach, only too brutally demonstrated by the histories of
colonialism and imperialism. What they reject is using this universal concep-
tion of capital as the ‘sole’ or ‘sovereign’ author of historical processes, in a
way that turns all other particular histories into differentiated expressions of
European history.62 The aim is to ‘displace a hyperreal Europe from the center
toward which all historical imagination currently gravitates’63 by (re)writing

57  Guha 1997, p. 5.


58  Chibber 2013, p. 39.
59  Anderson 1992, p. 116.
60  Cf. Chibber 2013, pp. 54–79. Our alternative understanding of the English and French cap-
italist revolutions is explicated at length in Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015, Chapter 6. An
important point Chibber is correct in stressing is that neither the English nor the French
bourgeoisie aimed to create liberal-democratic orders. The construction of such orders
was instead the product of the subaltern struggles emanating from workers and peasants
in the course of the revolutionary process. Why this point requires an entire chapter re-
counting the history of the English and French revolutions is unclear, particularly in light
of the criticisms of Chibber’s misreading of Guha’s argument (see below).
61  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 43.
62  Taylor 2010.
63  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 45.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 49

these non-universal, particular and local histories ‘back in’. From this perspec-
tive, postcolonial scholars seek to highlight the inherent liminality of univer-
sal categories in fully capturing the broad range of sociohistorical processes
operating in the ‘extra-European’ and European world. This in turn demands
an examination of the myriad hybrid sociopolitical forms produced by capi-
tal’s universalisation and thus interaction and contestation with ‘pre-existing
concepts, categories, institutions and practices’64 in both European and non-
European locales.
This aim of identifying parts of social life not subsumed by the universal-
ity of capital leads Chakrabarty to a highly stimulating reading of Marx’s later
writings.65 In particular, Chakrabarty singles out Marx’s category of ‘abstract
labour’ as the concept that captures the homogenous and homogenising ten-
dency in capital. According to Marx, the practice, act, or performance of ab-
straction becomes apparent in workplace discipline, wherein the ‘life’ or ‘living
labour’ of the worker is abstracted-from and subsumed by ‘dead labour’ – the
machine. Such an abstraction enables the homogenisation and thus equali-
sation of various, particular or concrete instances of labour to become the
measure of wealth under capitalism. It is also through this abstraction that
wealth itself is created. In order to extend relative surplus labour, labour-saving
technologies are introduced, thus reducing to a minimum the amount of living
labour necessary for production. In this respect, the abstraction of labour also
acts as the mechanism through which labour is ‘emancipated’.66 This tendency
to simultaneously exploit and emancipate labour constitutes what Marx calls
the ‘moving contradiction’ of capital.67
For Chakrabarty, the significance of these claims about abstract labour is
that inscribed in the very universality of abstract labour is its opposite – real
labour. This denotes the specific acts of labour that make abstract labour a
possibility, but also points to the element of ‘life’ or ‘living’ for the worker, and
the attempt of the worker to re-appropriate their ‘life’, as the basis of resistance
against capital. Thus, given in the very universality of abstract labour is a par-
ticularity – real labour – that remains never quite conquered by capital. It is
on the basis of this distinction that Chakrabarty introduces the concepts of
‘History 1’ and ‘History 2’.

64  Chakrabarty 2008, p. xii.


65  Chakrabarty 2008, pp. 59–68.
66  Marx 1973, p. 701.
67  Marx 1973, p. 706.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


50 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

History 1 refers to that past presupposed by capital, ‘a past posited by capi-


tal itself as its precondition’ and ‘its invariable result’.68 Although Chakrabarty
leaves this largely unspecified, it is clear from his preceding discussion that
what he has in mind is abstract labour. In contrast, History 2 refers to those his-
tories that are encountered by capital ‘not as antecedents’ established by itself,
nor ‘as forms of its own life-process’.69 History 2s are not ‘outside’ of capital or
History 1. Instead, they exist ‘in proximate relationship to it’,70 whilst poten-
tially ‘interrupt[ing] and punctuat[ing] the run of capital’s own logic’.71
Although Chakrabarty is clear in his definition, he is somewhat elusive
when it comes to the exact content of History 2. Nonetheless, with his discus-
sion of abstract labour in mind, he does appear to be talking about those ele-
ments involved in the reproduction of labour-power that are not subsumed by
abstract labour itself. Others, most notably feminist authors, have theorised
some of these aspects of History 2 as the ‘reproductive’ or ‘unwaged’ sphere.72
History 2 also draws affinities with biopolitics, those elements of politics and
society found ‘in the person’s bodily habits, in unselfconscious collective
practices, in his or her reflexes about what it means to relate to objects in the
world as a human being and together with other human beings in his given
environment’.73 History 2s can additionally involve aspects that are in fact an-
tithetical or generate resistance to capital’s own ‘life-process’ – that is, capital’s
logic of self-reproduction – which might include particular cultural forma-
tions, customs and ideologies. A concrete example of this element would be
the pre-existing cultures of workers in the Calcutta Jute mills that Chakrabarty
examined in a previous study.74 Hence, History 2s may well include non-
capitalist, pre-capitalist or local social relations and processes. However, the
concept is not exhausted by these, and can also refer to universal and global
categories, social relations and processes.
Indeed, following Marx, two of the examples Chakrabarty gives of History
2s include commodities and money – two universal categories central to the
functioning of capitalism.75 Hence, Chibber’s criticism that Chakrabarty uses

68  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 63.


69  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 63; Marx 1973, pp. 105–6.
70  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 66.
71  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64.
72  See e.g. Delphy and Leonard 1984; Federici 2012.
73  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 66.
74  Chakrabarty 2000.
75  ‘[Capital] originally finds the commodity already in existence, but not as its own prod-
uct, and likewise finds money circulation, but not as an element in its own reproduc-
tion ... But both of them must be destroyed as independent forms and subordinated to

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 51

History 2 to refer to merely local (‘Eastern’) manifestations of abstract and


universal (or ‘Western’) processes76 is inaccurate. History 1 is not simply ‘an
abstract definition’, the ‘universal’ or ‘the West’; nor is History 2 by contrast
seen as a concrete manifestation, local, and/or Eastern,77 as Chibber reads it –
notably, Chakrabarty himself nowhere defines History 1 and History 2 as any
of these.78
Rather, History 1 functions as an analytical history. It abstracts from spe-
cific instances in order to ‘make all places [histories] exchangeable [compa-
rable] with one another’.79 But, moreover, the conception of History 1 as a set
of abstract categories – abstract labour, exchange-value, etc. – designate what
Alfred Sohn-Rethel called ‘real abstractions’.80 These are more than just ‘ab-
stract descriptions’ or ‘abstract delineations’ – that is, concepts – but relations
and processes that affect the functioning of capitalism as a mode of produc-
tion. The very act of abstracting – as both Marx and Chakrabarty argue – from
the individual concrete labour of each worker is the precondition for their
exchangeability on the market, and hence the precondition for capitalism
as such. History 2s can, by contrast, provide ‘affective narratives of human
belonging where life forms, although porous to one another, do not seem

industrial capital’ (Marx quoted in Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64). Chakrabarty therefore notes
(Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64) that ‘the heterogeneity Marx reads into the history of money
and commodity shows that the relations that do not contribute to the reproduction of
the logic of capital can be intimately intertwined with the relations that do’. Put in dif-
ferent terms, while History 2s may lie outside capital’s logic of self-reproduction, through
their relational position within the wider totality of capitalist society they can nonethe-
less function to reproduce it.
76  So when Chibber castigates Chakrabarty for not comprehending that ‘no practice ever
conforms in every detail to its abstract conception. It is not an insight, therefore, to de-
clare that this or that social fact has elements in it that are not present in its abstract de-
lineation’ (Chibber 2013, p. 227), it is clear that this is down to a fundamental misreading
of the meaning of the ‘abstract’ in both Marx and Chakrabarty.
77  Chibber 2013, pp. 235, 238.
78  As David Blaney and Naeem Inayatullah put the matter (Blaney and Inayatullah 2010, pp.
167–8), Chakrabarty’s reading of Marx’s narrative in terms of History 1 and 2 ‘allows two
historical stories: one comprising elements that are the logical/historical preconditions
of capital (History 1) and another with elements that are not logical/historical precondi-
tions but which capital nevertheless incorporates, internalizes, and transforms (History
2)’. As this definition also makes clear, Chibber’s dichotomous interpretation of History 1
as Western, abstract and universal, and History 2 as Eastern, particular and local, is wide
of the mark.
79  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 71.
80  Sohn-Rethel 1978.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


52 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

e­ xchangeable through a third term of equivalence such as abstract labour’.81


In this way, History 2s do not simply appear as a differentiated functional mo-
ment in the development of capitalism. As Marcus Taylor argues, ‘while capital
may indeed seek to rewrite social life to further the cause of “endless accumu-
lation”, it does not do so – to twist a famous maxim – in conditions of its own
choosing’. Capital’s universalisation must instead be understood as ‘a process
that constantly inhabits, remakes and is fundamentally remade in its interac-
tion with institutional forms, regimes of value and alternative temporalities
that have their lineage in other histories and modes of being’.82

The Dialectics of History 1 and 2


Chakrabarty’s critique of Marxism’s ‘blind spot’83 is then focused on its in-
ability (or unwillingness) to take History 2 ‘seriously’.84 The Marxist analysis
of the capitalist mode of production tends to create – and methodologically
situate itself within – ‘abstract space’, which erases ‘the local’ and ‘evacuates
all lived sense of place’.85 Although History 1 may seek to negate, destroy or
sublate History 2, there is no guarantee that ‘this could ever be complete’.86
Therefore, the correct method, according to Chakrabarty, is to write history in
a way that combines History 1s and History 2s, wherein the ‘universal history
of capital and the politics of human belonging are allowed to interrupt each
other’s narrative’; and wherein capital’s ‘histories are History 1s constitutively
but unevenly modified by more and less powerful History 2s’.87 Most revealing-
ly, the category through which Chakrabarty seeks to elucidate such ‘difference’,
‘modifications’ and ‘interruptions’ is Marx’s (universal) category of real labour,
the category that alongside – and in tension with – abstract labour inheres in
all commodities in the capitalist mode of production.
It is clear, then, that when Chakrabarty is talking about History 2s – about
real labour, about difference – he is doing so in a way that both depends upon
and reveals a dialectical relation with History 1s, with abstract labour, and with
universality as such. That is, ‘just as real labor cannot be thought of outside
of the problematic of abstract labor, subaltern history cannot be thought of

81  Chakrabarty 2010, p. 71.


82  Taylor 2010, p. 5; see similarly, Shilliam 2009, p. 72.
83  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 67.
84  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 69.
85  Chakrabarty 2008, p. xvii.
86  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 65.
87  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 70.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 53

outside of the global narrative of capital’.88 As such, it is important to reject


Chibber’s denunciation that Chakrabarty is providing ‘a license for exoticism’.89
As Chakrabarty explicitly states, his argument is ‘not against the idea of uni-
versals as such’, but an emphasis on how ‘the universal was a highly unstable
figure, a necessary placeholder in our attempt to think through questions of
modernity’.90 Chakrabarty is unequivocal in his description of History 2; these
are ‘histories that capital everywhere – even in the West – encounters as its an-
tecedent, which do not belong to its life process’.91 Insofar as History 2 refers to
processes and relations ‘within the time horizon of capital’,92 insofar as these
can be local or universal, insofar as they are equally relevant to the study of ‘the
East’ as well as ‘the West’, insofar as History 1 means something other than ‘ab-
stract definitions’ or ‘universals’, and insofar as it identifies concrete processes
and social relations, Chibber’s following charge is difficult to sustain:

Chakrabarty argues the universalization of capital is a myth, that it is for-


ever incomplete because the actual practice of reproduction in the East
does not conform to its abstract description as presented in the works of
Marx or other Enlightenment thinkers. And the reason it does not con-
form to that description is that History 2 forces modifications on it.93

Chibber’s reading not only misses the subtleties of Chakrabarty’s argument, it


also imposes a highly contradictory reading of the tensions and antagonisms

88  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 95.


89  Chibber 2013, p. 238; emphasis in original. To be clear, this is not to deny that some of
Chakrabarty’s empirical analyses fall prey to such ‘exoticism’ – of treating local or tra-
ditional particularities as unproblematic sites of resistance to capital’s universalising
reach. This is well exemplified by Chakrabarty’s (Chakrabarty 2008, Chapter 8) prob-
lematic treatment of the figure of the grihalakshmi (goddess of the house) in Bengali
bhadralok’s attempts to celebrate Indian cultural difference against the dominance of a
universal(ising) colonial modernity (see Bandyopadhyay 2004, p. 183). However, the point
we are making here is that Chakrabarty’s definition of History 2 cannot be logically re-
duced to such ‘exoticism’ or particularities as it explicitly incorporates universal elements
and phenomena. We thank an anonymous review for raising this important issue in push-
ing us to further clarify our position.
90  Chakrabarty 2008, p. xiii.
91  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 69; emphasis ours. It is worth noting that by invoking the term ‘ante-
cedent’, Chakrabarty is not making an exclusively diachronic argument, although he does
not deny the possibility of it being used diachronically.
92  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 95.
93  Chibber 2013, p. 227.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


54 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

Chakrabarty elucidates in his own analysis of capital. On the one hand,


Chibber insists that Chakrabarty is incorrect to argue History 2 necessarily
forces modifications on History 1, or that the former alters the latter’s ‘funda-
mental logic’. Specifically, whatever impact History 2 might have on History
1, the latter’s ‘rules of reproduction’ will not have been ‘disturbed, even if the
workings, or the form in which they are instantiated, may have been affected
to some degree’.94 Chibber then highlights the numerous ways in which certain
History 2s are tolerated or wholesale appropriated by capital to facilitate the
latter’s functioning.95 The implication here is that the study of History 2 does
not carry the weight of significance that Chakrabarty assigns to it.
None of this, however, actually refutes Chakrabarty’s argument since, as we
have seen, for Chakrabarty commodities and money – History 2s – are cen-
tral to the functioning of capitalism as a mode of production. In other words,
Chakrabarty clearly does not envision every aspect of History 2 as necessarily
antagonistic to the reproduction of capital. How else could he possibly claim
that commodities and money are part of History 2 – ‘something belonging to
the “cellular” structure of capital’?96 Chibber argues, by contrast, that ‘[e]ven
while some relations associated with History 2 might be dysfunctional for capi-
tal, it is simply impossible to image that every such relation would have to be.
Chakrabarty seems to equate the autonomy of a practice from the logic of capi-
talism with that practice being corrosive to capitalism’.97 Contrast this with
what Chakrabarty actually says about History 2s:

These relations could be central to capital’s self-reproduction, and yet it is


also possible for them to be oriented to structures that do not contribute

94  Ibid.
95  Chibber 2013, pp. 236–7.
96  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64.
97  Chibber 2013, p. 228; emphasis in original. Chibber here backs this position by arguing
that Chakrabarty ‘defines History 2 simply as those practices that “do not lend themselves
to the logic of reproduction of capital” ’ (Chibber 2013, p. 228). But compare this with the
full quote from Chakrabarty: ‘I therefore understand Marx to be saying that “antecedent
to capital” [elements of History 2] are not only the relationships that constitute History 1
but also other relationships that do not lend themselves to the logic of reproduction of
capital’ (Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64; emphasis ours). That is to say, aspects of History 2 can
be fundamental to the functioning of capital, without necessarily forming part of capi-
tal’s own ‘logical presuppositions’ (Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64): again, take Chakrabarty’s ex-
amples of money and commodity, to which one could also add the ‘reproductive sphere’,
patriarchy, and systemic racism – all of which, we would argue, are constitutive elements
of capitalism (see Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015).

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 55

to such reproduction. History 2s are thus not pasts separate from capital:
they inhere in capital and yet interrupt and punctuate the run of capital’s
own logic.98

In other words, Chakrabarty is arguing that aspects of History 2 can indeed


be fundamental to the functioning of capital, without necessarily constituting
part of capital’s own ‘logical presuppositions’.99
But the contradiction in Chibber’s argument becomes even more appar-
ent once he insists that there is no necessity within History 1s to subjugate
History 2s.100 Chibber argues that capital can happily tolerate History 2s auton-
omously existing side-by-side with History 1s, without the former being ‘corro-
sive’ to the latter.101 But for Chibber to say this is to deny the very universalising
drive that both Marx and Chakrabarty insist exists at the core of capital’s ‘laws
of motion’. It is to say that capital does not persistently seek to subordinate
processes and social relations not posited by itself to its own logic. It is to deny
the multivalent processes of subsumption, expansion, colonisation and accu-
mulation that marks both the logic and history of capitalism102 – surely both
rather bizarre claims for any Marxist-inspired understanding of capitalism as a
totalising mode of production. In short, Chibber’s misreading of History 1 and
History 2 leads him to make the very argument that he criticises Chakrabarty
for: that the universalisation of capital – insofar as it entails more than the
simple generalisation of market-dependency103 – is wholly a myth.

98  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64; emphasis ours. Relatedly, as Chakrabarty writes elsewhere:
‘Capitalist production … has thrived in a variety of cultures, ranging from the most hi-
erarchical to the most democratic. Perhaps we have overestimated capitalism’s need
or capacity to homogenize the cultural conditions necessary for its own reproduction’
(Chakrabarty 2000, p. xiii).
99  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 64.
100  Chibber 2013, p. 233.
101  Chibber 2013, p. 228.
102  Chibber claims ‘the motivation behind this assault on the worker comes from the threat
posed by History 2’, therefore, ‘[Chakrabarty] is asserting that capital will not tolerate in
its workers any vestige of local customs, practices, or expectations that do not conform
to its functional requirements’ (Chibber 2013, pp. 235, 237). But Chakrabarty does not say
this. What he does say is that labour processes under capitalism tend to subsume, subju-
gate and thus abstract from History 2s. This is not a controversial argument for a Marxist.
Whether the motive is to destroy History 2, or extract surplus or tickle kittens, is neither
here nor there. To deny that the labour process does subjugate and thus abstract from the
lives of the individual worker is to deny a basic premise of Marx’s theory of capital – i.e.
abstract labour.
103  Chibber 2013, p. 111.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


56 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

Resistance to Capital: History 1, 2 or Both?


Chibber, however, offers one way out of this contradiction. He argues that since
there is no necessary antagonism between History 1 and History 2, History 2
cannot (necessarily) destabilise History 1. Rather, the universalising tendency
of capital is limited because it is ‘destabilized by elements internal to History 1’,
a possibility that ‘Chakrabarty never seriously considers’.104 Putting aside the
fact that Chakrabarty devotes a whole subsection in Provincializing Europe
titled ‘Abstract Labour as Critique’ where he does exactly this (and see also the
above quotes drawing on Marx), let us examine Chibber’s own claim that ele-
ments internal to History 1 can destabilise capital.
Chibber suggests that the primary source of instability in capitalism comes
from workers opposing capital, from the former seeking to assert their ‘wants
and needs’ against the latter. He then goes on to highlight that such wants
and needs drove subaltern struggles to limit the length of the working day,
which subsequently led to a systemic abandonment of the capitalist strategy
of extracting absolute surplus value, moving capital to a strategy of extract-
ing relative surplus value. Hence, History 1s were modified and limited not by
History 2s, but by History 1s – that is, by workers. As Chibber puts it: ‘If there
is any genuine source of opposition to capital’s universalizing drive, it is the
equally universal struggle by subaltern classes to defend their basic humanity’.105
Interestingly, this argument bears some striking similarities with the one
offered by Chakrabarty,

subaltern histories do not refer to a resistance prior and exterior to the


narrative space created by capital; they cannot therefore be defined with-
out reference to the category ‘capital’. Subaltern studies … can only situ-
ate itself theoretically at the juncture where we give up neither Marx nor
‘difference’, for … the resistance it speaks of is something that can happen
only within the time horizon of capital, and yet it has to be thought of as
something that disrupts the unity of that time. Unconcealing the tension
between real and abstract labor ensures that capital/commodity has het-
erogeneities and incommensurabilities inscribed in its core.106

There is one difference between Chakrabarty and Chibber, however, since the
former sees subaltern resistance situated in the (universal) category of ‘real
labour’; that is, History 2. For it is the antagonism between abstract labour

104  Chibber 2013, p. 230.


105  Chibber 2013, p. 233; emphasis ours.
106  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 95.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 57

(History 1) and real labour (History 2) that Chakrabarty considers to be at the


heart of his Marx-inspired research programme.
In contrast, due to his misapprehension that ‘History 1 = universals’, Chibber
argues that subaltern resistance is a part of History 1, and as a consequence
feels compelled to invoke the universality of human nature – ‘the interest in
well-being’107 as the source of workers’ resistance and opposition to capital.
But this characteristic, by virtue of it being based on an a priori conception
of human nature, by virtue of it being something antecedent to that which is
posited by capital, is – indeed, can only be – part of History 2. To claim oth-
erwise – to claim human nature is History 1 – is to argue that capital posits
human nature as part of its own life-process, bringing Chibber suspiciously
close to ideologues who argue capitalism is merely an expression of human
nature. It is also to claim that capital posits ‘the interest in well-being’ as ‘part
of its own life-process’. But if anything the whole point of the Marxist critique
of capitalism is that the opposite is true – capital neither expresses human
nature, nor does it fulfil the interests of ‘basic humanity’ and ‘well-being’.
There is, then, much at stake in retaining some of the insights gleaned
from Chakrabarty’s interpretation of Marx. For his emphasis on the tensions
between History 1s and History 2s appears crucial to mitigating against the
potentially ahistorical, essentialising and (economically) homogenous read-
ing of capitalism and the resistance to it found in Chibber’s alternative. While
Chibber is very careful, as he continually insists, not to deny that all sorts of
social and cultural differences can exist under capitalism,108 his conception
of what capital’s universalisation actually entails tells us very little about the
differential dynamics of capitalism or the struggles generated by it within any
particular locale.109 The question that must be asked is then: What tools does

107  Chibber 2013, p. 231.


108  As he makes clear, ‘capitalism is perfectly compatible with a diverse set of political and
cultural formations’ while also noting that capitalism is in fact ‘not only consistent with
great heterogeneity and hierarchy, but systematically generates them’ (Chibber 2013,
p. 285; see similarly pp. 150–1 and 243–6).
109  In addition, the idea that capitalism’s universalisation should be conceived as the gen-
eralisation of a ‘reproductive shift toward market dependence’ among economic units
(Chibber 2013, p. 110) begs the question of the accuracy of this description in understand-
ing the real history of capitalist development and its expansion. Is it really the case that
oligopolistic and state-run forms of enterprise are market-dependent in any meaningful
sense? Under oligopolistic market conditions, is it not the market that is more depen-
dent on and determined by the dominant firms, rather than the other way around? And
what about the role of state interventionism more generally? Can any of these aspects
of ‘really existing capitalism’ be accounted for in a satisfactory way by Chibber’s Political

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


58 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

Chibber’s alternative conceptualisation provide Marxists in understanding


and theorising difference? Very few it seems. Yet surely this is an important
component for developing concrete political strategies and tactics in different
sociopolitical and cultural contexts. Moreover, given that the study of sociohis-
torical difference is the defining problematic of postcolonial theory, Chibber’s
failure to elaborate any alternative conceptual framework besides a brief run
through some previous Marxist attempts is a rather strange and problematic
omission.
For the above reasons, the kind of method Chakrabarty proposes strikes us
as an altogether positive advance for scholars going about writing the history
of capitalism.110 Taking a multiple and differentiated agency as a starting point,
and subsequently exploring encounters and interactions within this multiplic-
ity is the kind of approach Marxists should embrace, not reject. It is therefore
worth briefly noting some of the affinities between Chakrabarty’s approach
(and postcolonialism more broadly) and the theory of uneven and combined
development, while demonstrating how Trotsky’s idea assists in redressing
some fundamental shortcomings of postcolonial theory.111

Marxist-inspired conception of capital’s universalising tendency? In critiquing the


Political Marxist conception of capitalism, Neil Davidson argues (Davidson 2012, p. 418)
that ‘“pure” capitalist social property relations have never been completely dominant
anywhere, nor – unless socialists completely fail in their objectives – will they ever be’.
Nonetheless, for Chibber’s analysis, the answers to these questions are unclear given the
level of analytical abstraction he formulates his conception at.
110  We have sought to construct a history of the making of capitalism in which the sorts of
histories targeted by ‘History 2’ – specifically those found in the ‘unwaged’ or ‘reproduc-
tive’ sphere – are understood as constitutive of ‘History 1’ – the formation of ‘abstract
labour’ and an industrial proletariat as such (Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015).
111  Although Chibber himself invokes Trotsky’s idea at the very end of Postcolonial Theory
as one of a number of Marxist attempts to ‘understanding the specificity of the East’
(Chibber 2013, p. 291), he does not employ the theory in developing any of his substantive
critiques of Subaltern Studies. Neil Lazarus (Lazarus 2016, p. 106) finds this absence of the
theory of uneven and combined development in the ‘main body of his [Chibber’s] study’
a ‘failure that simply baffles understanding’. On one level this is true: how could Chibber
not draw on a concept that is so applicable in making his case against postcolonialism?
On another level, however, it makes sense given that the entire thrust of Trotsky’s theory
is to illuminate and articulate the interactively-generated developmental differences
between societies and their consequent sociological amalgamations that problematise
and transcend the kind of abstract definitions of capitalism and static comparative per-
spectives provided by Chibber and the theoretical frameworks upon which he draws
(cf. Murphet 2014, pp. 161–2). For Marxist critiques of postcolonialism that employ uneven
and combined development in a more systematic way, see Matin 2013 and Kaiwar 2014.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 59

The Limits of Postcolonial Theory

Postcolonialism and Uneven and Combined Development


To begin with, positing a ‘not-yet’ to ‘backward’ peoples was a prevalent and
distinctly ‘historicist’ sentiment within Russia precisely at the time Trotsky
was developing the theory of uneven and combined development. Pointedly,
Trotsky rejected the Menshevik idea of ‘waiting’ for a bourgeois stage before
a proletarian revolution could occur and insisted on the ‘now’. The Bolshevik
Revolution and strategy of permanent revolution are direct outcomes of
this, while uneven and combined development was its methodological and
theoretical foundation. This is especially revealing given the centrality of the
peasant – the supposedly non-modern agent par excellence – in Russian so-
cial life generally, and the Bolshevik Revolution specifically. In the History of
the Russian Revolution, Trotsky’s explicitly characterises Russia’s revolutionary
conditions in terms of the imbalance between town and country, and revo-
lutionary agency in terms of the combination of a newly-formed industrial
proletariat and the pre-existing peasantry. We can trace this back even further
to Marx, who himself saw the potential for a communist revolution in Russia
ahead of the capitalist heartlands due to the very prevalence and dominance
of the peasant commune.112
The reason both Marx and Trotsky identified forms of divergence and dif-
ferences similar to those found in the postcolonial literature was because both
were sensitive – with some important limitations113 – to the intersection of
History 1s and History 2s. As we shall see, it is through the idea of ‘combina-
tion’ that Trotsky’s theory provides a non-stadial, multilinear understanding of
development that explicitly denies essentialised and externally related dichot-
omies of pre-capitalist and capitalist. Similarly, we find in Marx an outright
rejection of any ‘supra-historical’ application of his categories in Capital. This
was because ‘events strikingly analogous but taking place in different historic
surroundings led to totally different results’ and thus could not be explained

112  <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/index.htm>.
113  It is notable, for example, that neither Marx nor Trotsky integrated the analysis of the
non-waged sphere into their examination of capitalism in any systematic way. This has
led some Marxists to see relations of patriarchy and white supremacy as mere ideologi-
cal functions of the otherwise economic logic of capitalism. Such reductionism has been
forcefully challenged by an array of authors working from the perspectives (for want of
better terms) of critical gender and race theory, who have emphasised that both patriar-
chy and racism must be viewed as sets of class relations. See e.g. Delphy and Leonard 1984;
Mills 1997; Alcoff and Fraser 2005; Federici 2012.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


60 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

‘by the universal passport of a general historico-philosophical theory’.114 The


explicit (if still partial) disavowal of historicism (in Chakrabarty’s meaning of
the term) in the writings of Trotsky and Marx should therefore alert us to the
possibility that postcolonialism and Marxism need not be seen as mutually
exclusive endeavours.
With this in mind, we suggest that uneven and combined development pro-
vides a theoretical approach that strengthens the broader aims of the postco-
lonial research programme. We make this suggestion because there remains
a tension within postcolonialism that ultimately undermines its efforts in
both fully subverting Eurocentrism and reinserting non-European agency into
the history of capitalism. The tension is rooted in the parochial – dare we say
‘provincial’ – scope of its critique; that is, their subject rarely extends beyond
the particular experience of modernity in specific localities and, particular-
ly, those experiences in the colonial modernities of the Global South. Thus,
Chakrabarty notes that ‘Provincializing Europe is not a book about the region
of the world we call “Europe” ’,115 but is instead concerned with the generalisa-
tion of its forms and categories. Similarly, Chatterjee says: ‘[t]he universality of
Western modernity … is a product of its local conditions’, which is then subse-
quently ‘transported to other place and times’.116 Consequently, both authors
uncritically presuppose a discreet and hermetically-sealed European history in
which modernity was uniquely created before being subsequently expanded
globally which is then the primary focus of their analyses.117 Such a view is an
integral part of the myth of Europe as an exceptional, pristine and autono-
mous entity that happened to be especially well suited to the transition to, and
spread of, capitalism.118 Insofar as ‘the West is constituted as an imperial fetish,
the imagined home of history’s victors’ and ‘the embodiment of their power’,119
many of the processes of developmental differentiation that created hierarchi-
cal imbalances between colonisers and colonised are occluded.120

Guha’s ‘Dominance without Hegemony’ Reassessed


In these ways, we find in postcolonial works a lack of any substantive engage-
ment with the question of how capitalism emerged and developed in Europe

114  <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/index.htm>.
115  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 3.
116  Chatterjee 2010, pp. 296–7.
117  Cooper 2005, p. 20.
118  For two notable exceptions, see Bhambra 2007 and Shilliam 2009.
119  Coronil 1996, pp. 77–8; see similarly, Lazarus 2002.
120  Cf. Dirlik 1997; Lazarus 2011.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 61

in the first place. This is a – perhaps the – critical lacuna of postcolonial theory.
Take, for example, Ranajit Guha’s classic analysis of Indian colonial modernity
in Dominance without Hegemony and Chibber’s critique of it. Guha argues that
capitalist modernity in India diverged from the experience of modernity in
the West, creating a distinct form of political rule – ‘dominance without he-
gemony’. This in turn forms the foundation for Guha’s key argument regarding
‘the failure of the Indian bourgeoisie to speak for the nation’121 – that it failed
‘to successfully integrate the culture of the disparate groups in Indian society
into one all-embracing political community’. According to Chibber, such an
argument is necessarily a contrastive claim requiring a comparative analysis of
some sort.122 This is so because the ‘peculiarity’ of the Indian bourgeoisie con-
stituting their ‘failure’ as such, Chibber argues, ‘simply cannot be understood
without reference to some events which comprise the norm, or the standard,
against which the peculiarities of colonialism can be understood’.123
Chibber goes on to claim that the norm or standard from which to make
this comparative contrast that Guha himself provides is that of the English
and French bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centu-
ries respectively.124 Chibber argues that ‘Guha’s historical sociology’125 of these
events is mistaken, drawing as it does on a now ‘discredited historiography of
the European revolutions’. As a consequence, Guha’s broader claims regarding
the ‘putative gap between the competency of Indian and western European
capitalists … [is] largely fictional’.126 In substantiating these points, Chibber
then offers his own synthesised, alternative historical sociology of these
revolutions127 drawing on the latest (predominately ‘revisionist’) historio-
graphical literatures in showing that neither the English nor French experi-
ences could be defined as ‘“bourgeois revolutions” in the sense that Guha uses
the term’.128

121  Guha 1982, p. 5.


122  Chibber 2013, pp. 33, 34.
123  Chibber 2014a, p. 83.
124  Chibber 2013, pp. 54–5.
125  Chibber 2013, p. 102.
126  Chibber 2014a, p. 82.
127  See Chibber 2013, pp. 54–79.
128  Chibber 2013, p. 55; For the reasons why the English and French revolutions cannot be
considered ‘bourgeois revolutions’ in Guha’s sense (or, for that matter, in the classical
Marxist sense), see pp. 76–9. We have provided an analysis of these revolutions that
refutes many of Chibber’s historical arguments while drawing on a wider and more di-
verse range of perspectives in the historiographical literature than his own (Anievas and
Nişancıoğlu 2015, Chapter 6).

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


62 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

Here we leave aside the substance of Chibber’s historical analysis and in-
stead focus on the relevance of these claims for both the Subaltern project and
Chibber’s critique of it. Chibber writes:

At the heart of the Subalternist project, and of postcolonial theory more


generally, stands the claim that there is a deep fault line separating
Western capitalist nations from the postcolonial world. The importance
of Ranajit Guha’s work is that it offers a historical sociology that seeks to
explain how and why this fault line came into being.129

The significance of Guha’s historical sociology of the early bourgeois revolu-


tions in Europe for Chibber’s own critique of the Subaltern project is further
brought out by Chibber when he writes that ‘if the wider arguments in the
Subalternist oeuvre are to be assessed, the first requirement is an appraisal of
the historical sociology on which they rest, as developed by Guha’.130 Indeed,
Chibber’s key claim as to the originality of his critique of postcolonial theory is
that it primarily focuses on the ‘Subalternists’ historical sociology, particularly
their understanding of the East-West divergence – a subject crucial to their
project, albeit one that has garnered very little attention’.131
Chibber’s critique of Guha’s historical sociology is therefore fundamental
to his broader criticisms of the Subaltern project and postcolonialism more
generally. However, as a number of Chibber’s critics have argued, no such his-
torical sociological account of the early bourgeois revolutions in Europe actu-
ally exists in Guha’s text.132 For the main aim of Guha’s text was, according to
Chatterjee, ‘a critique of liberal historiography and the liberal ideology it rep-
resented and not […] a historical sociology of bourgeois revolutions of Europe
as Chibber understands it to be’. What Guha sought to draw out in the first
chapter of Dominance without Hegemony were two key claims made by liberal
ideology and its historiographical articulations.133 The first regards the univer-
salisation of capital highlighted in this hegemonic liberal narrative, and the

129  Chibber 2013, p. 50.


130  Chibber 2013, p. 26.
131  Chibber 2013, p. 22.
132  See Chatterjee 2013; Seth 2014. By contrast, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak has criticised
Chibber for the audacity to even question such a ‘primary text’ as Guha’s Dominance with-
out Hegemony, sardonically asking: ‘Would Professor Chibber correct Rosa Luxemburg
and DD Kosambi? No, because he knows they are primary texts’ (Spivak 2014, p. 190) –
a ridiculous claim that Chibber rightly takes to task as dogmatic nonsense in his reply
(Chibber 2014b, pp. 619–22).
133  Chatterjee 2013, p. 69.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 63

second concerns their representations of the English and French revolutions in


establishing bourgeois hegemony in the sense of the class’s ability to ‘speak for
all of society’.134 Guha quotes Marx on this ‘achievement’ of the early bourgeois
revolutions, which Chibber cites as evidence of Guha’s historical sociology of
these events. However, Guha does so in order to argue that, if taken in isolation
from Marx’s broader critique of capitalism, such claims would render Marx
nearly ‘indistinguishable’ from many nineteenth-century liberal ideologues.
Thus, nowhere does Guha actually ‘offer any propositions of his own that
might be construed as a historical sociology’ of such revolutions.135
Chatterjee’s interpretation of Guha’s work is broadly shared by Sanjay Seth
(a former PhD student of Guha) who argues that he never provided the puta-
tive historical sociology Chibber ascribes to him. Instead, Guha’s central en-
deavour was to demonstrate how Britain’s colonial rule of India ‘did not and
could not rest on the consent that it claimed for itself at home’ and that the
elites who took power after India’s independence could not either; that is,
the Indian bourgeoisie could only achieve ‘dominance without hegemony’.136
The object of Guha’s critique was then the co-constitutive constructions of
East and West by liberal historiography and its derivative discourses through a
conception of European history as universal history.137
What are we to make of such claims? Did Guha intend to offer a histori-
cal sociology of the English and French bourgeois revolutions as a ‘contrastive
comparison’ to his claims about postcolonial India? And, if not, did he logically
need to in substantiating his broader arguments?
While Chibber and his critics’ contrasting interpretations of Guha are
never quite as clear-cut as either of them makes them out to be, it would seem
that Chatterjee and Seth’s reading is the more plausible one. In his reply to
Chatterjee, Chibber chastises him for failing to provide ‘any textual evidence’
in support of his alternative interpretation of Guha or any engagement with
the textual evidence that Chibber himself adduces in substantiating his claims.
And Chibber is absolutely correct: Chatterjee does neither of these things. So
what happens when we do engage with the textual evidence from Guha that
Chibber provides?
Let us look at a few of the most important pages of Dominance without
Hegemony138 that Chibber singles out in challenging Chatterjee’s asserted

134  Guha 1997, p. 134.


135  Chatterjee 2013, p. 69.
136  Seth 2014, p. 1218; emphasis ours.
137  Roy 2015, pp. 3–4.
138  Guha 1997, pp. xi–xiii, 3–5.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


64 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

counter-interpretation, where he claims Guha makes it ‘abundantly clear’ that


he intends to offer a comparative ‘norm’ or ‘standard’ (i.e. the European bour-
geois revolutions) from which to draw out and critically examine the ‘pecu-
liarities of colonialism’.139 Despite Chibber’s claim that these pages support
his reading, Guha’s discussion in these pages appears to contradict Chibber’s
interpretation. This is above all evinced in Guha’s explicit discussion of his
particular method and object of critique where he makes clear that his meth-
odological approach is an exclusively historiographical one that aims to reflect
‘on the character of colonialist historiography and show how it has sought to
endow colonialism with a spurious hegemony denied it by history’.140 This
point is reiterated on the next page, where Guha writes:

Our approach to these problems [specifically, the failure of the Indian


bourgeoisie to speak for the nation and thus achieve hegemony] picks
its way through historiography, as the readers will notice no doubt from
the signs displayed all over the text and the arguments these refer to. We
have taken this particular course not out of any conviction that this is the
only possible way of asking questions about colonialism and the colonial
state … But we have decided on the historiographical approach primarily
because it helps us to combine the advantages of the classical theories [of
political philosophy] with a consideration of history as writing. The impor-
tance of the latter for our problematic is hard to exaggerate. For at a cer-
tain level the question of power in colonial South Asia or anywhere else
in a land under foreign occupation can be phrased succinctly as ‘Who
writes the history of the subjugated people?’.141

It appears, then, that Guha’s work is intended as an immanent critique of lib-


eral ideology – in both colonial and postcolonial forms – and its correspond-
ing hegemonic historiographical tendencies represented by rival colonial and
nationalist historians in India. As such, Guha’s critical ‘historiographical ap-
proach’ operates at the purely discursive or narrative-centred level. It seeks to
demonstrate that the failure of the British bourgeoisie in ruling colonial India

139  Chibber 2014a, p. 83.


140  Guha 1997, p. xii.
141  Guha 1997, p. xiii; emphasis ours. Further in regard to the importance of this historio-
graphical approach, Guha writes: ‘Our attempt to inform this study of colonialism by the
pathos of a purloined past is therefore not so much a matter of professional convenience
as a strategy to situate the writing of a conquered people’s history by conquerors at the
very heart of the question of one nation’s oppression by another’ (Guha 1997, p. xiv).

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 65

and their Indian counterparts after independence ‘to measure up to the hero-
ism of the European bourgeoisie in its period of ascendancy’142 is, for Guha,
the standard or norm from which to critique it as presented by liberal ideo-
logues and their historiographical representations. In other words, the ‘contras-
tive comparison’ that Guha is making is one internal to liberal ideology and its
historiographical representations of European history.
From this perspective, Guha takes aim at the shared presumption of a ‘uni-
tary political domain’ (‘Civil Society = Nation = State’) – derivative of the hege-
monic form of rule that Britain claimed for itself at home – that colonial and
nationalist historiographies read into the Indian past.143 In contradistinction
to this ‘enigma’ common to ‘both of those rival ideologies’ which Guha takes as
his ‘point of departure’, he argues that the ‘colonial state in South Asia was very
unlike and indeed fundamentally different from the metropolitan bourgeois
state which had sired it’.144 Guha is therefore essentially holding up the British
colonial and Indian bourgeoisie and critiquing them in the mirror of their own
ideological and historiographical constructions. In his own words:

we present our views on the structure of dominance in colonial India and


historiography’s relation to it as a critique of our own approach to the
Indian past and our own performance in writing about it. The purpose of
this work is, therefore, simply to stimulate a degree of self-criticism with-
in the practice of Indian historiography. What calls for such self-criticism
is our complicity with colonialist historiography.145

Guha seems content not to offer any substantive historical sociology of these
events himself. Instead, Guha only provides an exposition of different elite-
based historiographical accounts of the Indian colonial and postcolonial state.
But significantly, before doing so, he turns to a discussion of the liberal ideo-
logical and historiographical critique of feudalism in the era of its demise and
the ascendancy of the bourgeoisie.146 What he is seeking to elucidate here is
where an ‘uncompromising critique’ of a ruling order (e.g. feudalism, capital-
ism, etc.) might come from. Guha answers: ‘[f]rom outside the universe of
dominance which provides the critique with its object, indeed, from another

142  Guha 1997, p. 5.


143  Guha 1997, pp. xi–xii.
144  Guha 1997, p. xii.
145  Guha 1997, p. 96.
146  Guha 1997, pp. 11–13.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


66 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

and historically antagonistic universe’.147 He then raises a question of ‘fun-


damental importance’ to his analysis: where ‘does the critique of liberalism
itself come from?’. Again, the answer is that it comes from ‘an ideology that
is antagonistic towards the dominant culture and declares war on it even be-
fore the class for which it speaks comes to rule’, an ideological critique that
organically ‘arises from the real contradictions of capitalism and anticipates
its dissolution’.148 Guha then lays out one such contradiction – the universalis-
ing tendency of capital – that ‘serves as a basis for the critique of a bourgeois
culture in dominance’. He argues that Marx’s conceptualisation of capital’s
universalising tendency is

not about expansion alone, but about an expansion predicated firmly


and inevitably on limitations capital can never overcome; not simply
about a project powered by the possibility of infinite development, but a
project predicated on the certainty of its failure to realize itself.149

Marx’s critique of capital’s universalising drive as a necessarily limited and


incomplete forms the launching-pad for Guha’s subsequent analysis. But, as
should be clear, Guha’s argument throughout remains an expository one; it
operates at the discursive level examining different hegemonic and counter-
hegemonic ideologies, historiographical representations, and critiques.
Having established this ideological and historiographical context and the
nature of his critique in the preface and opening pages of the book, Guha goes
on to make various comparative contrasts between the European and Indian
bourgeoisie and their political orders without actually having to make any
substantive historical sociological claims of his own. On this interpretation, it
then makes sense that Guha’s discussion of the English and French revolutions
would take the form of ‘highly compressed statements’ that are continually
‘presented in the form of an assertion, not an argument’150 for which Guha
provides no supporting references to any contemporary historical works or
wider body of historiographical literature. And why should he if the aim of the
study was an internal critique of liberal ideological narratives and historiog-
raphies? The normative benchmark for Guha’s critique of liberal historiogra-
phy is their own self-representations of the role of the bourgeoisie in Europe
and India and the types of political orders they produced. It is then the ‘real’

147  Guha 1997, p. 11.


148  Guha 1997, p. 13.
149  Guha 1997, p. 15.
150  Chibber 2013, p. 54.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 67

contradiction inhering in capital’s own universalising tendency which consti-


tutes the material conditions from which such an ideological critique – indeed,
Marx’s critique – could emerge.151
Hence, the quotations Chibber produces from Guha to credit him with a ‘his-
torical sociology’ of the early bourgeois revolutions turn out to be – when read
in this broader context and structure of Guha’s work – Guha’s critical exposi-
tion of other writers’ analyses (both liberals and Marx). This reading also makes
sense when Guha speaks of the ‘heroism of the European bourgeoisie in its
period of ascendancy’ as it seems that Guha is here being deliberatively ironic
in using the very characterisation of the European bourgeoisie (‘heroism’) as
presented by their liberal ideologues and corresponding historiographies.

The Lacuna of Postcolonial Theory


Though the historical sociology that Chibber finds in Guha does not appear to
exist, one could certainly forgive him for thinking it did. For Chibber’s other
key point regarding the logical necessity of Guha providing some historical
‘contrastive comparison’ in understanding the ‘peculiarities’ of the colonial
and postcolonial Indian state and its bourgeois representatives remains valid.
Chibber’s critique of the ‘Subalternist oeuvre’ that rests on Guha’s work is in
this regard broadly correct; though not quite in the way Chibber intended.
That is to say, the lack of any historical sociological account of the ascen-
dancy of bourgeois dominance and the origins of capitalism in Europe more
generally in the Subalternist oeuvre limits their ability to fully transcend the
Eurocentric modes of analysis they so forcefully critique. It is this absence that
constitutes the fundamental shortcoming of the Subaltern project and post-
colonial studies as a whole. It unintentionally leads them to present a highly
idealised picture of European development as endogenously giving birth to
capitalist modernity from where it subsequently spread outward that does
not accord with the historical evidence. The West is thereby endowed with
hyper-fetishised agential powers – the sole and sovereign author of their own
history.152
Despite acknowledging the significance of capitalism as a force of history,
postcolonialism’s lack of engagement with the historical origins of capital-
ism lends itself to a conception of capitalism that is ‘decidedly singular and

151  As Guha reiterates (Guha 1997, p. 20): ‘the critique of historiography should begin by
questioning the universalist assumptions of liberal ideology and the attribution of hege-
mony taken for granted in colonialist and nationalist interpretations of the Indian past.
It must begin, in short, by situating itself outside the universe of liberal discourse’.
152  Coronil 1996; Lazarus 2002.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


68 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

decidedly European’.153 This in turn runs the risk of reproducing ‘the Orien-
talist trope that the specificities of “Oriental” states and societies are subor-
dinate to the all-encompassing and irreducible categorisation of their being
Oriental’.154 The emphasis on such ‘specificity’, moreover, tends to overlook the
very processes of developmental differentiation that created hierarchical im-
balances between colonisers and colonised in the first place.155 So, while ad-
ditional empirical frameworks gleaned from the postcolonial approach have
decentred many Eurocentric presuppositions, these theoretical presupposi-
tions have remained intact and at worst actively replicated.156
To modify Frederick Cooper’s call to arms: in order to truly ‘provincialise’
Europe one must dissect European history itself, and there is no more central
myth to be dissected than that of narrating European history around the his-
tory of capitalism.157 As Kamran Matin argues, such a task ultimately requires
‘a general social theory, and not just a theory of modernity’, one ‘that goes be-
yond a mere phenomenology of capital’s expansion and comprehends capital
itself as a product of the interactive multiplicity of the social’.158 This demands
a genuinely ‘internationalist historiography’159 and theorisation of capital-
ism’s emergence and reproduction; one that could ‘distinguish between the
inflated, utopian self-presentation of capital as abstract and homogenous and
the contradictions internal to historical capitalism that produce a global, dif-
ferentiated, and hierarchical space-time’.160 For the very conditions giving rise
to capitalist social relations within Europe over the longue durée were often
rooted within and emanating from non-Western sources and agents.161
Such an ‘internationalist’ perspective is, we argue, provided by the theory
of uneven and combined development. By positing the multilinear character
of development as its ‘most general law’,162 uneven development provides a
necessary corrective to any ontologically singular conception of society163 and

153  Cooper 2005, p. 20.


154  Bryce 2013, p. 100.
155  Cf. Dirlik 1997; Lazarus 2011.
156  Halperin 2006, p. 43.
157  Cooper 2005, p. 22.
158  Matin 2013, p. 364.
159  Banaji 2010, p. 253.
160  Goswami 2004, p. 40.
161  See Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015.
162  Trotsky 2008.
163  That is to say, the derivation of societal multiplicity (‘the international’) from the
properties of a unitary social form (for example, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, etc.).
Consequently, while ‘international’ (or intersocietal) phenomena may be permitted all

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 69

associated unilinear conceptions of history that underpin Eurocentric ac-


counts. By positing the intrinsically interactive character of this multiplicity,
combined development in turn challenges the methodological internalism of
Eurocentric approaches while the very concept of combination denotes that
there has never existed any pure or normative model of development.164 As
such, the theory rejects Eurocentrism’s reified conceptualisation of the univer-
sal as an a priori property of an immanently conceived homogeneous entity.
For the ‘historical reality’ of uneven and combined development165 is a ‘uni-
versally operational causal context’ whose ontological fabric is simultaneously
generative of and shaped by intersocietal alterity.166 This is an approach that
conceptualises the specificities of any given society as representing ‘an original
combination of the basic features of the world process’ – a ‘social amalgam
combining the local and general’ that is ‘nothing else but the most general
product of the unevenness of historical development, its summary result, so
to say’.167 It thereby allows for a conception of the universal that is amenable
to and constituted by difference itself.168

Conclusion

In this article, we have sought to reassess the potential merits and pitfalls of
postcolonial theory – and, in particular, the Subaltern project – through the
prism of Vivek Chibber’s Marxist-inspired critique of it. In so doing, we have
demonstrated some of the problems with Chibber’s critique which, we argue,
must be overcome in order to properly appreciate both the strengths and weak-
nesses of the postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism, opening the way for new
and more constructive engagements between Marxism and postcolonialism.
As we have shown, Leon Trotsky’s idea of uneven and combined development
provides one potentially fruitful avenue of engagement and critique.169 This is
a concept that has undergone an unprecedented intellectual revival over the

kinds of contingent empirical significance in a given analysis, they do not factor into the
theorisation of what constitutes a society as such. See Rosenberg 2006. This problem of
ontological singularity is reproduced by Chibber in his critique of postcolonialism and
elsewhere: see especially, Chibber 2011.
164  See Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015.
165  Trotsky 1972, p. 116.
166  Matin 2013, p. 368.
167  Trotsky 1962, p. 23; Trotsky 1969, p. 56; Trotsky 1962, p. 24.
168  Cf. Matin 2013.
169  See further, Murphet 2014; Nilsen 2015; Lazarus 2016.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


70 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

last two decades, particularly in the field of International Relations and histori-
cal sociology, where scholars have sought to further draw out the implications
of uneven and combined development in offering a non-Eurocentric social
theory of ‘the international’.170
For implicit in Trotsky’s idea was a reconceptualisation of all development
as necessarily interactive and multilinear. This essentially redefined the very
concept and logic of development itself. Whereas the classical sociological
tradition conceptualised society as a singular abstraction,171 Trotsky’s con-
ception of development was inscribed with a ‘more-than-one’ ontological
premise.172 This then cleared the way for an entirely ‘new understanding of
human history’173 breaking with any Eurocentric, ‘historicist mode of thinking’,
as Chakrabarty terms it, that visualises development as ‘the secular, empty, and
homogenous time of history’.174
In its appreciation of societal multiplicity and difference, uneven and com-
bined development provides a way of capturing the non-linearity of develop-
ment that is so central to displacing Eurocentric accounts. As such, it shares
many affinities with postcolonial approaches. In particular, uneven and com-
bined development provides a particularly fertile framework through which
the sort of interconnections between History 1s and History 2s emphasised by
Chakrabarty might be identified, explored and explained. However, beyond
Chakrabarty and the Subaltern project, the advantage of uneven and com-
bined development lies precisely in its broader temporal scope. This uniquely
positions it as a framework through which we may reconstitute the master cat-
egories of Eurocentrism – such as capitalism and modernity – on the very ter-
rain they were purportedly generated: that of Europe.175
A Marxist critique of postcolonial theory should not simply dismiss the
problematic of sociohistorical difference postcolonial scholars have raised and
the implications this holds in furnishing a genuinely non-Eurocentric theory
of history. For the Marxist tradition provides invaluable resources in incorpo-
rating the strengths of the postcolonial critique of Eurocentrism, whilst tran-
scending its limitations.

170  For a list of some of these contributions, see <http://www.unevenandcombined


development.wordpress.com/writings/>.
171  Cf. Tenbruck 1994; Rosenberg 2006.
172  Rosenberg 2013, pp. 581–3.
173  Löwy 1981, p. 87.
174  Chakrabarty 2008, p. 23, paraphrasing Walter Benjamin.
175  See Anievas and Nişancıoğlu 2015 and 2016.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 71

References

Acharya, Amitav 2011, ‘Dialogue and Discovery: In Search of International Relations


Theories beyond the West’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies, 39, 3:
619–37.
Ahmad, Aijaz 1992, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, London: Verso.
Ahmed, Talat 2014, ‘Theories of Difference: The Subaltern Project Examined’,
International Socialism, II, 144, available at: <http://isj.org.uk/theories-of-
difference-the-subaltern-project-examined/>.
Alcoff, Linda and Nancy Fraser 2005, Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, Perry 1992, English Questions, London: Verso.
Anievas, Alexander and Kerem Nişancıoğlu 2015, How the West Came to Rule: The
Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism, London: Pluto Press.
Anievas, Alexander and Kerem Nişancıoğlu 2016, ‘Why Europe? Anti-Eurocentric
Theory, History, and the Rise of Capitalism’, Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies, 8,
1: 70–98.
Banaji, Jairus 2010, Theory as History: Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation,
Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar 2004, Caste, Culture and Hegemony: Social Dominance in
Colonial Bengal, New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Bartolovich, Crystal and Neil Lazarus (eds.) 2002, Marxism, Modernity, and Postcolonial
Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhabha, Homi K. 2012, The Location of Culture, London: Routledge.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2007, Rethinking Modernity and the Sociological Imagination,
London: Routledge.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. 2011, ‘Talking among Themselves? Weberian and Marxist
Historical Sociologies as Dialogues without “Others” ’, Millennium, 39, 3: 667–81.
Blaney, David and Naeem Inayatullah 2010, Savage Economics: Wealth, Poverty, and the
Temporal Walls of Capitalism, New York: Routledge.
Brennan, Timothy 2014, Borrowed Light: Vico, Hegel, and the Colonies, Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Bryce, Derek 2013, ‘The Absence of Ottoman, Islamic Europe in Edward W. Said’s
Orientalism’, Theory, Culture & Society, 30, 1: 99–121.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh 2000, Re-Writing Working Class History: Bengal 1890–1940,
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh 2005, ‘Subaltern Studies and Postcolonial Historiography’,
Nepantla: Views from South, 1, 1: 9–32.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh 2008, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference, Second Edition, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


72 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

Chatterjee, Partha 1983, ‘Peasants, Politics and Historiography: A Response’, Social


Scientist, 11, 5: 64–5.
Chatterjee, Partha 1993, The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial
Histories, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha 2010, ‘A Brief History of Subaltern Studies’, in Empire and Nation:
Selected Essays, New York: Columbia University Press.
Chatterjee, Partha 2013, ‘Subaltern Studies and Capital’, Economic & Political Weekly,
48, 37: 69–75.
Chattopadhyaya, Utathya 2014, ‘Time to Move On? A Response to Vivek Chibber’,
Kritik, Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory, University of Illinois, available
at: <https://unitforcriticism.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/authors-roundtable-vivek-
chibber-postcolonial-theory-and-the-specter-of-capital-response-by-utathya-
chattopadhyaya/>.
Chibber, Vivek 2011, ‘What Is Living and What Is Dead in the Marxist Theory of His-
tory?’, Historical Materialism, 19, 2: 60–91.
Chibber, Vivek 2013, Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, London: Verso.
Chibber, Vivek 2014a, ‘Revisiting Subaltern Studies’, Economic & Political Weekly, 49, 9:
82–5.
Chibber, Vivek 2014b, ‘Making Sense of Postcolonial Theory: A Response to Gayatri
Chakravorty Spivak’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27, 3: 617–24.
Cooper, Frederick 2005, Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History, Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Coronil, Fernando 1996, ‘Beyond Occidentalism: Toward Nonimperial Geohistorical
Categories’, Cultural Anthropology, 11, 1: 51–87.
Davidson, Neil 2012, How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois Revolutions?, Chicago:
Haymarket Books.
Delphy, Christine and Diana Leonard 1984, Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of
Women’s Oppression, translated and edited by Diana Leonard, London: Hutchinson
in association with the Explorations in Feminism Collective.
Dirlik, Arif 1997, The Postcolonial Aura: Third World Criticism in the Age of Global
Capitalism, Oxford: Westview Press.
Fanon, Frantz 1963, The Wretched of the Earth, translated by Constance Farrington,
New York: Grove Press.
Federici, Silvia 2012, Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist
Struggle, Oakland, CA: PM Press.
Goswami, Manu 2004, Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Guha, Ranajit 1982, ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’,
Subaltern Studies, 1: 1–8.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 73

Guha, Ranajit 1997, Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Halperin, Sandra 2006, ‘International Relations Theory and the Hegemony of Western
Conceptions of Modernity’, in Decolonizing International Relations, edited by
Branwen Gruffydd Jones, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Inayatullah, Naeem and David L. Blaney 2004, International Relations and the Problem
of Difference, New York: Routledge.
Jani, Pranav 2014, ‘Marxism and the Future of Postcolonial Theory’, International
Socialist Review, 92, 2, available at: <https://isreview.org/issue/92/marxism-
and-future-postcolonial-theory-0>.
Journal of World-Systems Research 2014, ‘Book Review Symposium on Postcolonial
Theory and the Specter of Capital by Vivek Chibber’, edited by Ho-fung Hung, 22, 1:
281–317.
Kaiwar, Vasant 2004, ‘Towards Orientalism and Nativism: The Impasse of Subaltern
Studies. Review of Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference by Dipesh Chakrabarty and Dominance without Hegemony: History and
Power in Colonial India by Ranajit Guha’, Historical Materialism, 12, 2: 189–247.
Kaiwar, Vasant 2014, The Postcolonial Orient: The Politics of Difference and the Project of
Provincialising Europe, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
Larsen, Neil 2001, Determinations: Essays on Theory, Narrative and Nation in the
Americas, London: Verso.
Lazarus, Neil 2002, ‘The Fetish of “The West” in Postcolonial Theory’, in Marxism,
Modernity and Postcolonial Studies, edited by Crystal Bartolovich and Neil Lazarus,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lazarus, Neil 2011, The Postcolonial Unconscious, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lazarus, Neil 2016, ‘Vivek Chibber and the Specter of Postcolonial Theory’, Race &
Class, 57, 3: 88–106.
Lazarus, Neil and Rashmi Varma 2008, ‘Marxism and Postcolonial Studies’, in Critical
Companion to Contemporary Marxism, edited by Jacques Bidet and Stathis
Kouvelakis, Historical Materialism Book Series, Leiden: Brill.
Levien, Michael 2013, ‘Subalternists Scrutinized. Review of Postcolonial Theory and the
Specter of Capital by Vivek Chibber’, European Journal of Sociology, 54, 3: 485–97.
Löwy, Michael 1981, The Politics of Combined and Uneven Development: The Theory of
Permanent Revolution, London: Verso.
Marx, Karl 1973, Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, translated
by Martin Nicolaus, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Matin, Kamran 2013, ‘Redeeming the Universal: Postcolonialism and the Inner Life of
Eurocentrism’, European Journal of International Relations, 19, 2: 353–77.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


74 Anievas and Nişancıoğlu

Mills, Charles W. 1997, The Racial Contract, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Murphet, Julian 2014, ‘No Alternative’, The Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary
Inquiry, 1, 1: 157–63.
Nilsen, Alf Gunvald 2015, ‘Passages from Marxism to Postcolonialism: A Comment on
Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital’, Critical Sociology,
OnlineFirst, <https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920515614982>.
Parry, Benita 2004, Postcolonial Studies: A Materialist Critique, London: Routledge.
Parry, Benita 2017, ‘The Constraints of Chibber’s Criticism’, Historical Materialism, 25,
1: 185–206.
Rosenberg, Justin 2006, ‘Why Is There No International Historical Sociology?’, European
Journal of International Relations, 12, 3: 307–40.
Rosenberg, Justin 2013, ‘The Philosophical Premises of Uneven and Combined
Development’, Review of International Studies, 39, 3: 569–97.
Roy, Ananya 2015, ‘Who Is Afraid of Postcolonial Theory?’, International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, OnlineFirst, <http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-
2427.12274>.
Said, Edward 1978, Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient, London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Schwartz, Michael 2014, ‘Capitalist Development, Structural Constraint and Human
Agency in the Global South’, Journal of World-Systems Research, 20, 2: 294–9.
Seth, Sanjay 2014, ‘Review of Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital by Vivek
Chibber’, American Historical Review, 119, 4: 1218–20.
Shilliam, Robbie 2009, ‘The Atlantic as a Vector of Uneven and Combined Development’,
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 22, 1: 69–88.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty 2014, ‘Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital’,
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 27, 1: 184–98.
Taylor, Marcus 2010, ‘Histories of World Capitalism, Methodologies of World Labour:
Rethinking Uneven Development’, paper presented at the ECPR Standing Group on
International Relations, Stockholm, 15 July.
Tenbruck, Friedrich 1994, ‘Internal History of Society or Universal History’, Theory,
Culture & Society, 11: 75–93.
Trotsky, Leon D. 1962 [1931/1906], The Permanent Revolution and Results & Prospects,
London: New Park Publications.
Trotsky, Leon D. 1969 [1907], 1905, Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Trotsky, Leon D. 1972 [1933], ‘Uneven and Combined Development and the Role of
American Imperialism: Minutes of a Discussion’, in Writings of Leon Trotsky, 1932–33,
edited by George Breitman and Sarah Lovell, New York: Pathfinder.
Trotsky, Leon D. 2008 [1930–2], The History of the Russian Revolution, translated by Max
Eastman, Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75


Limits of the Universal 75

Vanaik, Achin 2013, ‘Powerful Critique of Postcolonial Theory’, Economic & Political
Weekly, 48, 28: 27–31.
Washbrook, David 1990, ‘South Asia, the World System, and World Capitalism’, The
Journal of Asian Studies, 49, 3: 479–82.
Watson, Matthew C. 2013, ‘The Poverty of Postcolonial Theory?’, Postcolonial Studies,
16, 2: 230–2.
Young, Robert J.C. 2001, Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.

Historical Materialism 25.3 (2017) 36–75